The formatting rule includes all rules governing paragraph formation and paragraph sequence. Rashi new of three reasons for consecutive paragraphs and sentences:
• Contrast
• Causal sequence
• Unifying Theme
It becomes exciting when the consecutive paragraph rule is connected with a violation of chronological order. We are asserting a basic theme of Rashi, Rabman and several other authorities on the underlying reason for the Bible breaking chronological order: If an incident belongs in a certain place in a chronological sequence, but the Bible deliberately avoids the chronological order, then the Bible is placing this incident proximate to other paragraphs in order to imply a contrast, cause or unifying theme. More succinctly Whenever the Bible violates chronological order it does so in order to indicate a contrast, cause or unifying theme with the new paragraphs in which it lies. Today's example exquisitely illustrates this.

We begin by noting the following blatant violation of chronological order.
• Nu01-01 speaks about a prophecy ...in year 2, month 2, day 1 from the day the Jews left Egypt.
• Nu09-01 speaks about a prophecy ...in year 2, month 1.
Thus as Rashi notes Chapter 9 in year 2, month 1, is stated in the biblical text after Chapter 1 in year 1, month 2.

Having established a break in chronological order we seek to explain this break by seeking a contrastive, causal, or unifying theme of Nu09 with the surrounding biblical chapters. The table below shows that Nu09 presents a unifying theme with the surrounding chapters of Jewish complaining.

Advanced Rashi: abc We make some supplemental points on the above Rashi
• The literal statement of Rashi There is no chronological order in the Bible is negative; it declares what isn't. It is therefore not a complete statement.
• By contrast we have supplemented this statement with what the lack of order accomplishes. So Rashi is in effect stating Chronology is not the only source of consecutiveness in the Bible. There are other equally important considerations such as cause, contrast, unifying theme.
• Notice that we have supplemented Rashi's literal explanation The order was changed. Chapter 9 was placed here. Why? Because this was the only Passover that the Jews observed. What I have added to Rashi's explanation is a clarification of the underlined words here and observed. I have explained
  • Chapter 9 was placed here in a sequence of chapters speaking about Jewish complaints
  • The essence of Jewish complaints was lack of belief in God's deliverance whether a deliverance for food, water, or conquest. Maybe the Jews did formally observe the other Passovers; but they did not observe these Passovers emotionally!! They did not experience through their observance that just as God overcame Egypt so too he could overcome Canaan and so too he could provide food and water.
  In short through the application of our fundamental principle on breaks of chronological order I have enriched the understanding of Rashi as indicating a deep and profound psychological principle: The slaves did remember God's beneficience (It wouldn't make sense if they didn't) But slaves have no sense of time, possesion and permanance. This recognition of God was intrinsically temporary because of their slave mentality. No sooner had they thanked God did they start complaining again. The way I have explained Rashi, the lack of observance of other Passover's is not an issue. Rather the underlying issue is the unifying theme of much of Numbers - the theme of complaints and lack of gratitude. Rashi sees an occasional observance as temporary contrastive appreciation.
• Ramban agrees with Rashi's approach. He explicitly states that The default Torah order is chronological; however if the Bible explicitly violates that chronological order then we are justified in using other explanatory devices [such as cause, contrast and unifying theme.]
• My opinion (which I cannot fully defend here) is that when Ramban and Rashi disagree on issues of chronological order they do so because of one obscure grammatical rule that forces Rashi to see a break in the chronological order. Since Ramban was ignorant of this rule he does not see a need to break the chronological order. Hence, although he appears to disagree with Rashi on the treatment of chronological order he really disagrees with Rashi on an obscure gramamtical principle (I intend to bring examples of this grammatical dispute in future issues).